On 10/21/14 12:21, jb...@gmx.de wrote:
"Jeff Law" <l...@redhat.com>:
On 10/21/14 16:13, Haswell wrote:
The additional source must have the same requirement crossmodule-indircall-1.c
has.
* crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
Why? When used by crossmodule-indircall-1.c we'll have already tested
the marker and when used by itself, it does nothing.
So I don't see why you think a marker is needed for this source file.
When configuring --disable-lto it gets compiled twice:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation,
-fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution,
-fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation,
-fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution,
-fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
I'd recommend looking deeper. I believe that file should be collapsing
down to main () { return 0; } when LTO is not enabled.
jeff
